Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753342AbcDNHVK (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2016 03:21:10 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]:35749 "EHLO mail-lf0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751205AbcDNHVH (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2016 03:21:07 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 4/7] ARM64, ACPI, PCI: I/O Remapping Table (IORT) initial support. To: Sinan Kaya , Marc Zyngier , tglx@linutronix.de, jason@lakedaemon.net, rjw@rjwysocki.net, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, robert.richter@caviumnetworks.com, shijie.huang@arm.com, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com, hanjun.guo@linaro.org References: <1459759975-24097-1-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com> <1459759975-24097-5-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com> <570E645A.9010600@arm.com> <570E6794.4080409@semihalf.com> <570E6B2C.3060700@arm.com> <570EB78E.4060705@codeaurora.org> Cc: al.stone@linaro.org, mw@semihalf.com, graeme.gregory@linaro.org, Catalin.Marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ddaney.cavm@gmail.com From: Tomasz Nowicki Message-ID: <570F44CD.7090605@semihalf.com> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 09:20:45 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/38.0 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <570EB78E.4060705@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1015 Lines: 22 On 13.04.2016 23:18, Sinan Kaya wrote: > On 4/13/2016 11:52 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>>> Sure. Please see: >>>> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.den0049a/DEN0049A_IO_Remapping_Table.pdf >>>> 3.1.1.5 PCI root complex node >>>> PCI Segment number -> The PCI segment number, as in MCFG and as >>>> returned by _SEG in the namespace. >>>> >>>> So IORT spec states that pci_segment_number corresponds to the segment >>>> number from MCFG table and _SEG method. Here is my patch which makes >>>> sure pci_domain_nr(bus) is set properly: >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/16/418 >> Lovely. So this series is actually dependent on the PCI one. I guess we >> need to solve that one first, because IORT seems pretty pointless if we >> don't have PCI support. What's the plan? > > Would it be OK to split the PCI specific section of the patch and continue > review? PCI is a user of the IORT table. Not the other way around. I need to disagree. What would be the use case for patches w/o "PCI part" ? Tomasz